PURPOSE: To determine differences in coronary artery calcium detection, quantification, and reproducibility, as measured at electron-beam computed tomography (CT) and subsecond spiral CT with retrospective electrocardiogram gating in an asymptomatic adult population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy subjects asymptomatic for coronary heart disease underwent both electron-beam CT and subsecond spiral CT. In all subjects, two images each were obtained with both scanners. Two experienced readers using three different algorithms scored each of the four scans: one score for the electron-beam CT images and two scores for the spiral CT images. RESULTS: With a 130-HU threshold for the quantification of calcium, there were no significant differences in interscan and interobserver variation in calcium scores between the electron-beam CT and spiral CT images. There was greater interobserver (P <.001) and interscan (P <.03) variation in scores when a 90-HU threshold was used for spiral CT images. With a 130-HU threshold, when calcium scores were used for clinical risk stratification, there was a significant difference between the results obtained with electron-beam CT and those obtained with spiral CT (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Spiral CT has not yet proved to be a feasible alternative to electron-beam CT for coronary artery calcium quantification. There are systematic differences between calcium scores obtained with single-detector array subsecond spiral CT and those obtained with electron-beam CT.
PURPOSE: To determine differences in coronary artery calcium detection, quantification, and reproducibility, as measured at electron-beam computed tomography (CT) and subsecond spiral CT with retrospective electrocardiogram gating in an asymptomatic adult population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy subjects asymptomatic for coronary heart disease underwent both electron-beam CT and subsecond spiral CT. In all subjects, two images each were obtained with both scanners. Two experienced readers using three different algorithms scored each of the four scans: one score for the electron-beam CT images and two scores for the spiral CT images. RESULTS: With a 130-HU threshold for the quantification of calcium, there were no significant differences in interscan and interobserver variation in calcium scores between the electron-beam CT and spiral CT images. There was greater interobserver (P <.001) and interscan (P <.03) variation in scores when a 90-HU threshold was used for spiral CT images. With a 130-HU threshold, when calcium scores were used for clinical risk stratification, there was a significant difference between the results obtained with electron-beam CT and those obtained with spiral CT (P <.05). CONCLUSION: Spiral CT has not yet proved to be a feasible alternative to electron-beam CT for coronary artery calcium quantification. There are systematic differences between calcium scores obtained with single-detector array subsecond spiral CT and those obtained with electron-beam CT.
Authors: Hideya Yamamoto; Matthew J Budoff; Bin Lu; Junichiro Takasu; Ronald J Oudiz; Songshou Mao Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: E S Houslay; S J Cowell; R J Prescott; J Reid; J Burton; D B Northridge; N A Boon; D E Newby Journal: Heart Date: 2006-01-31 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Thomas H Schindler; Alvaro D Facta; John O Prior; Jerson Cadenas; Xiao-Li Zhang; Yanjie Li; James Sayre; Jonathan Goldin; Heinrich R Schelbert Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Mathias Goyen; Susanne C Goehde; Christoph U Herborn; Peter Hunold; Florian M Vogt; Elke R Gizewski; Thomas C Lauenstein; Waleed Ajaj; Michael Forsting; Jörg F Debatin; Stefan G Ruehm Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2004-02-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: John T Chow; Sundeep Khosla; L Joseph Melton; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Jon J Camp; Ann E Kearns Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 6.741